Affirmation of Circuit Court's Decision on Juror Nondisclosure and Verdict Instructions in Spence v. BNSF Railway Co.

Introduction

In Sherry Spence v. BNSF Railway Company, 547 S.W.3d 769 (2018), the Supreme Court of Missouri addressed pivotal issues surrounding juror nondisclosure and the proper submission of verdict directors in a wrongful death case. The case arose when Sherry Spence filed a wrongful death lawsuit against BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) following the fatal collision of her husband, Scott Spence, with a BNSF train at a railroad crossing in 2012. Central to the litigation were allegations of negligence by BNSF in maintaining the railroad crossing and potential negligence by BNSF's train crew.

Summary of the Judgment

The jury, after deliberation, found in favor of Spence, assigning fault percentages of 15% to BNSF for the conduct of its train crew, 80% for the failure to maintain the railroad crossing, and 5% to the decedent, Scott Spence. The circuit court initially awarded Spence $20 million, later reduced to $19 million. BNSF appealed, challenging the verdict on grounds of juror nondisclosure and procedural errors in the submission of verdict directors and instructions. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's decision, upholding the jury's verdict and the proper handling of juror nondisclosure claims and verdict instructions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced JOHNSON v. McCULLOUGH, 306 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. banc 2010), which highlighted the necessity of a "reasonable investigation" into juror backgrounds before seeking post-trial relief for nondisclosure. Additionally, Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013), was pivotal in establishing the standard of deference to trial court credibility findings. The court also referred to Missouri's Missouri Appellate Instructions (MAI), particularly MAI 20.02 and MAI 37.05(1), in determining the appropriateness of verdict director submissions.

Legal Reasoning

At the heart of the decision was the interpretation and application of Rule 69.025 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs claims of juror nondisclosure. The court determined that BNSF had waived its right to contest juror Kimberly Cornell's nondisclosure of her litigation and accident history because it failed to conduct a reasonable investigation using the correct spelling of her name before the jury was sworn. The majority held that the misspelling of Juror Cornell's name "Carnell" instead of "Cornell" impeded BNSF's ability to uncover her litigation history promptly, thereby satisfying the waiver provisions of Rule 69.025(e).

Regarding the verdict directors, the court affirmed that submitting separate verdict directors for BNSF's direct negligence and respondeat superior liability was appropriate under MAI guidelines. The court rejected BNSF's argument that a single verdict director should have sufficed, emphasizing that distinct theories of negligence warrant separate assessments of fault.

The dissenting opinion contested the majority's expansive interpretation of Rule 69.025, arguing that the rule explicitly pertains only to nondisclosure of litigation history and not to other pertinent facts such as a juror's family member's involvement in an automobile accident. The dissent emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the rule's language, suggesting that broader interpretations should be reserved for rule amendments.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for parties seeking relief based on juror nondisclosure. It underscores the necessity of conducting thorough and timely investigations into jurors' backgrounds, particularly when discrepancies in juror information arise. By affirming the proper use of multiple verdict directors, the court clarifies procedural expectations for presenting multifaceted negligence claims. Future cases involving juror nondisclosure will likely reference this decision to assess waiver claims and the adequacy of investigative measures taken by parties.

Additionally, the case highlights the balance courts must maintain between procedural rigor and adherence to clear rule language, as evidenced by the dissent. This may prompt further discussions or clarifications regarding the scope of juror nondisclosure rules in Missouri.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Juror Nondisclosure

Juror nondisclosure refers to a situation where a juror fails to truthfully answer questions about their involvement in past litigation during the jury selection process (voir dire). In this case, Juror Cornell did not disclose her litigation history or her son's fatal accident, which was crucial to BNSF's defense.

Rule 69.025

This rule outlines the procedures and requirements for addressing instances where a juror fails to disclose relevant litigation history. It mandates that parties conduct a "reasonable investigation" into jurors' backgrounds before seeking any post-trial relief and specifies the conditions under which such claims can be waived.

Verdict Directors

Verdict directors are instructions given to the jury outlining how to assess fault and damages in a case. They guide the jury in making impartial and legally sound decisions based on the presented evidence.

Respondeat Superior Liability

This legal doctrine holds an employer liable for the actions of its employees performed within the scope of their employment. In this case, BNSF was held liable for the actions of its train crew under this principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri's decision in Spence v. BNSF Railway Co. underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding juror disclosures and the submission of verdict instructions. By affirming the circuit court's handling of juror nondisclosure claims and verdict director submissions, the court provided clarity on procedural expectations in complex negligence cases. The dissent's focus on the strict interpretation of Rule 69.025 also highlights the ongoing dialogue within the judiciary regarding the scope and application of juror nondisclosure regulations. Overall, this judgment serves as a guidepost for future litigants and courts in managing similar issues with diligence and adherence to established legal standards.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Powell, in his dissenting opinion, contended that the majority overextended Rule 69.025 by applying it to aspects beyond its explicit language. He argued that the rule specifically addresses nondisclosure of litigation history and does not extend to other relevant facts, such as a juror's family member's involvement in an accident. Judge Powell emphasized the necessity of adhering strictly to the rule's text, suggesting that any broader application should be reserved for future rule amendments rather than judicial interpretation.